PT I agree it is difficult but if the method of slaughter was printed on the products packaging then the customer can decide and buy or not buy...that will concentrate the minds of the product producers
The problem is that in order to be halal food needs to be handled in a halal manner from start to finish with no exceptions. Using the example I gave earlier of a previous employer the processes the business used were categorically NOT halal (ie pork products were handled with other meat products) so it would be dishonest to say the business was halal. Even a pork-free meat product could have cross-handling with pork products in a manner that is entirely legal and safe - but the end product is categorically NOT halal despite some of the ingredients being so. How would that get labelled?
You can have raw ingredients labelled but once you move beyond that it is a very complicated subject.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
We will do so again. There is no other option.
There are some whopping platitudes and bollox being spouted on here today.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said: There is always some confusion in reporting this and similar events. Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed. That's quite a disparity. --------- This is the EU trying to juggle the horrifying figures and make them as small as possible for internal propaganda. The truth is that there are almost 200 wounded, 80 very seriously and many will still die.
I hate the EU too, but you have to accept that there is always plenty of confusion at times like this.
That is the most likely reason for the difference.
I thought he looked rather shell-shocked. His manner was too - as if he couldn't quite get his head around having to comment and not just in his usual groove.
I saw Corbyn speaking on TV, about 20 mins ago, but sat on the zapper, and lost the channel. Any ideas what he said.
He looked as if he aged overnight. But I didn't catch what he said.
The entire liberal left is completely broken by this latest atrocity. Their whole project of Multiculturalism has fallen over and collapsed under the inherent, incoherent, illogical nature of its own dogma.
"And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential"
How does that translate into action? Who exactly do we discriminate against and what form should this take? We have plenty of laws against those who threaten to kill or who actually kill. In what way can we take it further?
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
You assume the Middle East will be able to 'sort out their own problems', that leaving them be will reduce the threat they pose, and that doing nothing will stop 'them all moving to Europe'.
Which seems optimistic to a very high degree. We live in an increasingly connected world, and it is easy for things that occur in one part of the world to hurt us. The 9/11 bombers were not radicalised in the US, yet they attacked the US. We cannot draw up the drawbridge fully (although we're in a better situation than mainland Europe).
Then there are online issues: kids in our country are seeing radicalisation videos and IS propaganda on their phones and computers. This is very difficult to stop.
As for refugees: people will always try to flee conflict, and they will try to go where they are safest. For various definitions of 'safest', that is the west. The solution is to try to help the ME to stabilise. Failure to do this will just cause more chaos in both the short and long terms.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
We will do so again. There is no other option.
There are some whopping platitudes and bollox being spouted on here today.
Fans of politics thinking its their big chance to impersonate their idols #statesmanlike
BB63 You may be missing the point..the method of slaughter has to do with the level of needless suffering to the animal..If we have to kill them in order to eat them then let the killing be as swift and as painless as possible..not drawn out because of some nutty religious element.
A lot of abbatoirs globally use kosher/halal methods of slaughter, one reason being perhaps local customs, another simply that it gives a wide range of customers. If we are to ban kosher/halal do we ban the import of meat that is killed that way too? Unless imports are banned a ban would be utterly pointless.
Get it all banned, bonus is it will create local employment as well.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
You can f right off, I am not racist
Secondly, I am making the same point as you, you utter cretin
Why people are banned for using bad language but not for calling people racist I do not know
You are a fool
Your entire argument is rooted in deep seated racism and xenophobia, you are attempting to interpret this tragedy to promote your political agenda against immigration when immigration is NOT the issue. Immigration of Islamists is.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
You can f right off, I am not racist
Secondly, I am making the same point as you, you utter cretin
Why people are banned for using bad language but not for calling people racist I do not know
You are a fool
Your entire argument is rooted in deep seated racism and xenophobia, you are attempting to interpret this tragedy to promote your political agenda against immigration when immigration is NOT the issue. Immigration of Islamists is.
No it isn't, it is rooted in logic and experience of human nature
I am neither racist nor xenophobic, I wouldn't say I was patriotic either
What you have just posted would insult the intelligence of a year 7 politics student, you are clueless
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
The author has made an argument. UCAS have rejected that argument.
It's a curious form of racial discrimination that seems to be applied to Afro-Carribeans, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, but not to black Africans, Indians, or Chinese.
Hollande has called it an act of war, and Sergey Lavrov has had his tuppence-worth. How to react to an act of war? Do you pen a strong Guardian article and assume that's enough?
Some will.
In the real world, Putin and Assad will gain a little, giving the useful idiots an excuse to point the finger elsewhere.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
"Further research using fully representative, detailed, non-personal applicant data is needed to find out for sure whether university admissions are fair or not. “
Basically, the article says previous studies are untrustworthy, more research needed.
If Hollande says this was an act of war by ISIS then we, along with France and US and whoever else need to go into Syria right now sort this mess out.
LOL, you halfwit , assume you are enlisting Monday. Where have you been the last 10-15 years, were you involved in sorting it out the last few times or do you fight from your armchair.
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
You can f right off, I am not racist
Secondly, I am making the same point as you, you utter cretin
Why people are banned for using bad language but not for calling people racist I do not know
You are a fool
Your entire argument is rooted in deep seated racism and xenophobia, you are attempting to interpret this tragedy to promote your political agenda against immigration when immigration is NOT the issue. Immigration of Islamists is.
A lack of integration is the issue. I have no objection of people disappearing into whatever church of their choice as long as that church does not tell them what to do after they leave.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
The history of the colonial powers' attempts to stabilize the middle east is not very encouraging.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
What happens when those same strongmen sponsor terrorism that hits us in our own country? Gadaffi wasn't an ally of ours for most of his time in power, and neither was Hussein or Assad. All these strongmen sponsored or encouraged terrorism that either directly hit us, or our allies.
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said: There is always some confusion in reporting this and similar events. Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed. That's quite a disparity. --------- This is the EU trying to juggle the horrifying figures and make them as small as possible for internal propaganda. The truth is that there are almost 200 wounded, 80 very seriously and many will still die.
I hate the EU too, but you have to accept that there is always plenty of confusion at times like this.
That is the most likely reason for the difference.
There was some debate last night if this was true or not. It seems to be true - but an *innocent* explanation. I have my doubts at such a coincidence.
Fire rips through Calais's notorious 'Jungle' migrant camp after Paris massacre but workers deny claims it was revenge attack
Fire in 'jungle' camp believed to have been caused by an electrical fault 2,500 metres of tents and shelters were burnt down in the fierce blaze No casualties have been reported from the site and the fire has now been put out by firefighters
If Hollande says this was an act of war by ISIS then we, along with France and US and whoever else need to go into Syria right now sort this mess out.
LOL, you halfwit , assume you are enlisting Monday. Where have you been the last 10-15 years, were you involved in sorting it out the last few times or do you fight from your armchair.
You've made many an 'armchair fighting' post. When did you sign up?
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
"And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential"
How does that translate into action? Who exactly do we discriminate against and what form should this take? We have plenty of laws against those who threaten to kill or who actually kill. In what way can we take it further?
The Syrian and Sub-Saharan Diasporas have different origins and reasons but the net effects are the same. In Syria, the exodus will end as and when it becomes possible to restore stability to that country and create conditions to encourage voluntary repatriation. That won't be with a vengeful Assad and his security apparatus in place.
The fact is the migrants are here and perhaps winter will slow them down, perhaps not but it is a humanitarian disaster in the making if we do not quickly make arrangements to allow these people to survive.
I'm not sure our positions are that far apart but I don't have your anger. Perhaps I should but I don't. Intolerance and evil comes in all shades, colours and creeds - all have to be resisted.
It's fury at the awful sadness that families all over Paris will be feeling today and for times to come. Cold fury at those leaders who have avoided for decades describing what is happening clearly and taking real effective action at every level (and I'm not primarily thinking of military action). And it's a furious contempt at those who lack the moral clarity that's needed in the face of evil.
Above all, I feel so sad for Paris because it's a city I love, a city in which I have had so many happy times in, a city where I have friends, colleagues and family. And I am furious that it should be assaulted by people who aren't fit to be a stain on Parisian cobblestones and have left so many people dead and injured on the streets of Paris. That's all.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
The history of the colonial powers' attempts to stabilize the middle east is not very encouraging.
No, it isn't. But the region's history is much more complex than most will care to admit, and has as much to do with the chaos after the fall of the Ottoman Empire than anything else.
The source of much of the conflict is ethnic and religious. Separating these communities is something I find hateful, but might be the only way forward. A Kurdish state. An Alawite state. Shia states. Sunni states.
There are obvious and deep problems with this. But what other ways forwards are there?
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 5m5 minutes ago Update - Reuters: Islamic State has said it was behind the attacks in #Paris in an official statement.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
"Further research using fully representative, detailed, non-personal applicant data is needed to find out for sure whether university admissions are fair or not. “
Basically, the article says previous studies are untrustworthy, more research needed.
Or put more succinctly "please sir, can we have some money".
The idea that the hierarchy of Universities in the United Kingdom in 2015 would have an even remotely discriminatory admissions process is laughable.
If anything, the likelihood is that potential students who do not tick a Multicultural box are the ones being discriminated against.
This, for example, is exactly how the BBC works, Straight, white males who do not "know someone" would be best not wasting their time applying.
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
What happens when those same strongmen sponsor terrorism that hits us in our own country? Gadaffi wasn't an ally of ours for most of his time in power, and neither was Hussein or Assad. All these strongmen sponsored or encouraged terrorism that either directly hit us, or our allies.
Serious question. When did either Hussain or Assad encourage or sponsor terrorism against us, any other European country or the wider western world?
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
You can f right off, I am not racist
Secondly, I am making the same point as you, you utter cretin
Why people are banned for using bad language but not for calling people racist I do not know
You are a fool
Your entire argument is rooted in deep seated racism and xenophobia, you are attempting to interpret this tragedy to promote your political agenda against immigration when immigration is NOT the issue. Immigration of Islamists is.
A lack of integration is the issue. I have no objection of people disappearing into whatever church of their choice as long as that church does not tell them what to do after they leave.
You're right, my point was too narrowly put. Multiculturalism is very much part of the problem. However, it is likely that without Islamic immigration, multiculturalism on its own would not lead to anything close to these sort of events.
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
Is there a particular reason why the Bataclan would have been targeted?
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
You assume the Middle East will be able to 'sort out their own problems', that leaving them be will reduce the threat they pose, and that doing nothing will stop 'them all moving to Europe'.
Which seems optimistic to a very high degree. We live in an increasingly connected world, and it is easy for things that occur in one part of the world to hurt us. The 9/11 bombers were not radicalised in the US, yet they attacked the US. We cannot draw up the drawbridge fully (although we're in a better situation than mainland Europe).
Then there are online issues: kids in our country are seeing radicalisation videos and IS propaganda on their phones and computers. This is very difficult to stop.
As for refugees: people will always try to flee conflict, and they will try to go where they are safest. For various definitions of 'safest', that is the west. The solution is to try to help the ME to stabilise. Failure to do this will just cause more chaos in both the short and long terms.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
Only solution I can see is to get shot of the multi-culture moonshine, get back to our own way of life being premier, stop accommodating intolerant people etc, any who come and don't want to integrate and follow our way of life should be ejected pdq. Trying to molly coddle bullies does not work , they only understand a good kick in the bollox. Stop pandering to dogooder liberal halfwits who invariably are stinking rich to boot and never have to confront the results of their actions , living well cocooned far from the issues.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
We will do so again. There is no other option.
There are some whopping platitudes and bollox being spouted on here today.
Fans of politics thinking its their big chance to impersonate their idols #statesmanlike
Hertsmere_Pubgoer said: There is always some confusion in reporting this and similar events. Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed. That's quite a disparity. --------- This is the EU trying to juggle the horrifying figures and make them as small as possible for internal propaganda. The truth is that there are almost 200 wounded, 80 very seriously and many will still die.
Since when did the EU publish Sky News?
This is simply an on-going event where the news is not clear entirely yet.
It's the reverse, dear boy. SKY quoting EU figures. Do use whatever brains you have got.
No Sky are quoting the confirmed numbers from the French (which is not the EU). Confirmed numbers of deaths are frequently lower than the final total which is why it says "At least 120" rather than "no more than 120".
This is standard practice for how they report figures in tragedies, not a political conspiracy.
In terms of death toll it is closest to the Madrid bombings where 191 died or the Bali bombings where over 200 died
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
... I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
We might be a collection of small rainy archipelagos in the North Atlantic but we've consistently led the fight against tyranny and oppression in all its guises for centuries.
We will do so again. There is no other option.
There are some whopping platitudes and bollox being spouted on here today.
Isn't there just.
You'll hear if from the politicians etc as well.
And then they'll go back to looking the other away about forced marriage, cousin marriage, 'honour' killings, Islamic hate academies, Trojan horse schools, election rigging, industrial scale racist child rape, fatwas against writers and doubtless many other things I'm not aware of.
Whilst anyone who talks about them will get called a racist or be accused of exploiting things for their own benefit.
"And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential"
How does that translate into action? Who exactly do we discriminate against and what form should this take? We have plenty of laws against those who threaten to kill or who actually kill. In what way can we take it further?
Roger: I have to go now but I gave plenty of ideas earlier in the year when the Charlie Hebdo killings happened. I can dig them out later. But we should not be letting into the country people from extremist-ridden countries or failed states particularly when they come from the religion which, at least in part, underpins the terrorist ideology. We should not permit, for instance, Saudi funding of mosques and schools in this country. We should not permit Islamic schools which promote an education wholly at odds with British life and British liberal, democratic values.
''The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.''
Mr Yokel it is a Daily mail report that made bring up the prospect of ISIS losing. Apparently they lost Sinjar, Ramadi and Hol pretty much in the same day yesterday.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
In Sweden Roger, locals are taking it upon themselves to walk jews to / from synagogues for their safety.
Which aspect of Sweden's foreign policy brought that about Rog?
The truth is that if you follow the logic of the Isams and Blackburn's (and several other posters on here) there would be no Jews to escort to synagogues in Sweden (or here). Read the excellent post by 'Ears downthread
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
With a very heavy heart I fear you are close to the truth. Naturally the west promotes different forms of democracy as the best means of government. There are clearly parts of the ME not ready for this. However, I'd be hard put to support intervention in Syria to bolster Assad. I do believe the time may be ripe for a UN resolution and it would be great if the West and Russia could fine some common ground. I think it is shameful that Britain is on the sidelines thanks to the Miliband and now Corbyn nonsense. As for Malc G this morning has no-one told him that turnip season is over?
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
Is there a particular reason why the Bataclan would have been targeted?
Potentially yes but its hard to know if the connection to yesterdays events can be done with straight line or whether it was just the unlucky pick.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
"Further research using fully representative, detailed, non-personal applicant data is needed to find out for sure whether university admissions are fair or not. “
Basically, the article says previous studies are untrustworthy, more research needed.
Or put more succinctly "please sir, can we have some money".
The idea that the hierarchy of Universities in the United Kingdom in 2015 would have an even remotely discriminatory admissions process is laughable.
If anything, the likelihood is that potential students who do not tick a Multicultural box are the ones being discriminated against.
This, for example, is exactly how the BBC works, Straight, white males who do not "know someone" would be best not wasting their time applying.
Dair, I agree that the author has a vested interest in claiming that more research is needed.
I am just making the point that the article does not even claim to say what TSE says it did, far less constitute the “proof” he claimed
FWIW, three of the most under-represented groups in prestigious UK universities are the Welsh, N. Irish and the Scots.
University admissions to Oxbridge is horribly skewed to London and the S. East.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
William , exactly , if you look at every destabilised country in the middle east , they previously had hard line leaders who kept control but were not liked by UK and US. The idiots toppled them and now are surprised at the results. Now they want to repeat in Syria, luckily the Russians are going about it the right way , whack the halfwits and keep the nasty dictator in place , not great but best option for these countries.
"Which aspect of Sweden's foreign policy brought that about Rog?"
The truth is that if you follow the logic of the Isams and Blackburn's (and several other posters on here) there would be no Jews to escort to synagogues. Read the excellent post by 'Ears downthread
No, you cretin, there would be Jews to escort to synagogues, because the amount of Jews allowed into the country was tightly controlled by the Aliens act
As with others, appalled by the events in Paris overnight and the dreadful taking of innocent lives.
For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.
The alternatives seem either to condemn people to possibly years of futile existence in refugee camps where we routinely pick and choose those we want from the pool of the displaced and the dispossessed or we condemn those who physically come to Europe to either existence on the margins of society or worse facing a European winter with little or no help.
Ultimately, if we become a fearful, insular society, distrusting of certain groups and relying on endless surveillance and the rule of authority to create a facade of security and comfort for some, then, in some ways, terror will have won as we will have traded tolerance and compassion for security and comfort.
"Fortress Europe" was a term once used in a different context to describe a continent designed to be impervious to external threats (and Britain was that threat). Now, the Fortress is less a physical reality then a mentality - build the walls ever higher, make the surveillance ever more intrusive and perhaps we'll be safe.
As a Londoner, I've lived with the threat of terror most of my life - the response of the general public after 7/7 here and in Paris last night isn't just defiance, it's a re-affirmation of the people we are, not the people terror and fear would make us. Life goes on - I intend to live it in my way, on my terms with my compassion and tolerance intact.
Stodgy: it's not fear I feel but defiance and a bloody-minded determination not to continue tolerating the intolerable, to push back against it, compassion for the victims, their families and friends, hatred for those who bring evil into our lives and utter contempt for those who seek to justify and excuse them.
"And no we should not be obliged to tolerate the intolerable. And we should discriminate against those who seek to undermine us. Discrimination is only bad when it is done for irrelevant reasons. Discriminating against someone who hates you or tries to kill you is not just tolerable but essential"
How does that translate into action? Who exactly do we discriminate against and what form should this take? We have plenty of laws against those who threaten to kill or who actually kill. In what way can we take it further?
One instance - Enforce the law. Protect irreverent cartoonists and magic-realist novelists, and prosecute those who incite violence against them. We substantially fail at the first, and we nearly always fail at the second. And if there is a political hit to be taken from doing this, our leaders should be prepared to take it, rather than compromise and weadle and look away.
In more general terms, an acceptance that not all views deserve respect. Life in the modern West doesn't suit everyone, but it is not imperative on the West to change. Those unable to tolerate Western life and all it entails should rethink or live elsewhwere.
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
I think that European governments need to completely rethink their attitudes towards discrimination and "hate" speech. Currently, the default official position is to treat White Europeans as perpetrators of racial and religious discrimination, and ethnic minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, as their victims. A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
The history of the colonial powers' attempts to stabilize the middle east is not very encouraging.
No, it isn't. But the region's history is much more complex than most will care to admit, and has as much to do with the chaos after the fall of the Ottoman Empire than anything else.
The source of much of the conflict is ethnic and religious. Separating these communities is something I find hateful, but might be the only way forward. A Kurdish state. An Alawite state. Shia states. Sunni states.
There are obvious and deep problems with this. But what other ways forwards are there?
Leave them to sort their own way forward out. Some problems are just very hard for outsiders to resolve, particularly when:
1) The people driving the decision-making (eg British voters) have pretty much no understanding of the situation, hence the difficulty the UK has been having in deciding which side to bomb. 2) The outsiders are pursuing their own interests, which are often at odds with the interests of the people living there. 3) The results of (1) and (2) to date are that the people living there have very little trust in the said outsiders, and will actively resist their bright ideas even if they're well intended.
Terrifying events yesterday- beyond the comprehension of terror. Everyone saw it coming, but incomprehensible all the same.
The usual sentiments- we are at war, clash of cultures, we will defend our freedoms just don't seem to resonate. Hollande's speech that France will unite and act without mercy on the perpetrators- well these people blew themselves up, so I doubt very much he could equal that in the lack of mercy stakes.
The West is not going to solve this problem, we don't understand it, calling it a war echoes Bush's failed strategy and will only make matters worse.
The problem and solution lies within the Muslim community and their struggles with modernity; the incompatibility between theism and the way the world is changing.
A significant minority of Muslim young people are disaffected. That is not the West's fault. They are not disaffected because we are bombing Syria, or because of our policy in Israel- these are little more than side issues, or vessels that hoover up their resentment.
Young Muslims are angry and resentful because their culture is oppressive, their families controlling, their communities stifling. They are sent for hours every week as kids to the Madrassers , they are told how to behave, who to marry, what to do, they have their parents obsessively controlling the minutiae of their lives, now even more so with mobile phones, Facebook and social media. Muslim kids are reminded every day about the terrible consequences of bringing shame into their controlling families.
It is the crushing pressure of the family and the wider Muslim community that for me is causing these young people to rebel. Wouldn't you? And they can't rebel like Western kids, taking drugs, shagging around, turning Goth. They can't because the pressure of the family is too great. The shame of it all. So they turn to causes, their form of rebellion, to ISISS. For a Muslim it is a more legitimate form of rebellion- as perverse as that seems to us Westerners. For Muslim parents, a child running off as a Jihadi bride or fighting for ISISS is less shameful than them taking E, partying and getting pregnant. That is why many of these kids are described by their peers as nice- they are probably nice, they just so screwed up by their background that they lock into a nihilistic cause.
Google Muslim leader- Imams, muftis, Kyias, Muezzins etc... as many expressions for a leader as the Eskimos have for snow . A religion dogged by control freakery.
Muslim parents and communities are driving their kids into this kind of horrible radicalism- an outlet for their disillusionment. Muslims need to accept modernity, secularise and let their kids breathe. If they don't they will face a backlash that has the capacity to be far more terrifying than the atrocities committed yesterday. I'm not holding my breadth mind.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
What happens when those same strongmen sponsor terrorism that hits us in our own country? Gadaffi wasn't an ally of ours for most of his time in power, and neither was Hussein or Assad. All these strongmen sponsored or encouraged terrorism that either directly hit us, or our allies.
Serious question. When did either Hussain or Assad encourage or sponsor terrorism against us, any other European country or the wider western world?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
Pretty much a perfect example of the cultural relativism that David was criticising. Sorry MBE but to my mind you are utterly wrong in almost everything you have written there.
I'll take that criticism, I can understand the argument against it.
But from my perspective, one of the things which is best about British culture is that it has generally been "live and let live" and a broad tolerance, even celebration, of non-conformity. There isn't one true way, and that way alone, to be a Brit or to participate in British culture. There are plenty of people who feel strongly British and strongly Sikh, despite Sikh cultural traditions being miles removed from the stereotypical image of an "Englishman".
I remain moderately optimistic we can move to a situation where the vast majority of Muslims here feel they can do the same. That doesn't mean we need to radically change our values to accommodate them (Muslims who demand special legal treatment for the depiction of Mohammed should expect to be disappointed - again, "live and let live", even if that is a hard dictum to learn and live by sometimes) . But it may mean broadening the horizons of our cultural identity, and accepting things we once saw as alien to be something "one of us" might do. I don't think we can move to an unhistorically narrow view of "Britishness", as banning kosher would be.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
What happens when those same strongmen sponsor terrorism that hits us in our own country? Gadaffi wasn't an ally of ours for most of his time in power, and neither was Hussein or Assad. All these strongmen sponsored or encouraged terrorism that either directly hit us, or our allies.
Neither are our current buddies, ie Saudi. Trouble is we only chase the money and ignore what the outcome will be , the one's getting the money do not suffer the consequences , just get richer. It is interesting that we do not see many of the local countries rushing to sort out the problems.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Schengen is something of a Red Herring.
The people crossing into Greece evade proper border controls that do, in theory, exist. Likewise, they are supposed to exist in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and various other countries. None has made any great difference.
It may be that the backlash causes Schengen to collapse anyway but it would be a mistake to assume that ending it would make the migration crisis go away.
But Schengen members do need to be able to assure (1) enforcement of the external border, and (2) effective policing so that there are no effective hideouts for fugitives.
''However, it is likely that without Islamic immigration, multiculturalism on its own would not lead to anything close to these sort of events.''
That is an important point Mr Dair. Most immigrants integrate really well.
The issue is one particular group, but again people will try to separate Islamists from muslims in general.
Which groups in our country have by far the worst employment records? Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis.
Which groups in our country have by far the highest birth rates (and associated welfare dependence/bill) ? Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis.
FGM, lack of English, grooming.
The same cultural issues surface throughout in relation to religious relativity and the treatment of women.
A recent study in NE London into vaccination against the HPV virus which triggers cervical cancer highlighted the fact that these same groups were refusing their daughters the vaccination on the basis of religious belief linked to sexual activity/promiscuity.
There needs to be an assault on this belief system which is the kind of religious strait-jacket that this country has spent decades throwing off.
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Schengen is something of a Red Herring.
The people crossing into Greece evade proper border controls that do, in theory, exist. Likewise, they are supposed to exist in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and various other countries. None has made any great difference.
It may be that the backlash causes Schengen to collapse anyway but it would be a mistake to assume that ending it would make the migration crisis go away.
But Schengen members do need to be able to assure (1) enforcement of the external border, and (2) effective policing so that there are no effective hideouts for fugitives.
But France and Germany are perfectly capable of properly controlling their borders, to a reasonable degree of completeness. And by virtue of the treaty, they are not.
Or put more succinctly "please sir, can we have some money".
The idea that the hierarchy of Universities in the United Kingdom in 2015 would have an even remotely discriminatory admissions process is laughable.
If anything, the likelihood is that potential students who do not tick a Multicultural box are the ones being discriminated against.
This, for example, is exactly how the BBC works, Straight, white males who do not "know someone" would be best not wasting their time applying.
Dair, I agree that the author has a vested interest in claiming that more research is needed.
I am just making the point that the article does not even claim to say what TSE says it did, far less constitute the “proof” he claimed
FWIW, three of the most under-represented groups in prestigious UK universities are the Welsh, N. Irish and the Scots.
University admissions to Oxbridge is horribly skewed to London and the S. East.
I can't comment on Wales and Northern Ireland but in Scotland a degree from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or St Andrews is seen completely on par with one from Oxford or Cambridge. The best students also get the opportunity to go to University a year earlier if they choose a Scottish option.
Musings that Hollande may activate article 5 of NATO. If he does, thats going to put some politicans in a tricky position.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Thats Article 5, it's broad ranging, but it's an acceptance that an attack on a NATO member should be regarded as an attack on all members.
But, if you're anti-NATO then that enactment might be rather tricky to negotiate around.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
The history of the colonial powers' attempts to stabilize the middle east is not very encouraging.
No, it isn't. But the region's history is much more complex than most will care to admit, and has as much to do with the chaos after the fall of the Ottoman Empire than anything else.
The source of much of the conflict is ethnic and religious. Separating these communities is something I find hateful, but might be the only way forward. A Kurdish state. An Alawite state. Shia states. Sunni states.
There are obvious and deep problems with this. But what other ways forwards are there?
''But from my perspective, one of the things which is best about British culture is that it has generally been "live and let live" and a broad tolerance, even celebration, of non-conformity.''
Our inability to criticise islam, mohammed, and the people who take it seriously without fear of prosecution shows this to be completely inaccurate.
As Mr Dancer pointed out, we have a de factor islamic blasphemy law in our country, imposed by bloodshed, enshrined in law and supported by the establishment.
If Hollande says this was an act of war by ISIS then we, along with France and US and whoever else need to go into Syria right now sort this mess out.
LOL, you halfwit , assume you are enlisting Monday. Where have you been the last 10-15 years, were you involved in sorting it out the last few times or do you fight from your armchair.
You've made many an 'armchair fighting' post. When did you sign up?
My creepy stalker lying as ever. Halfwit I have many times derided the stupid who do the bidding of the pathetic politician's. They end up dead , bits missing or a bit of tin on a ribbon for the misguided policies of the tools you worship. I am intelligent and will not be fighting for a tool like Cameron or some other such idiot. I will sit in my armchair and lead my life, not slaver like you cretins, who I am certain would be hiding behind the sofa in reality.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
What happens when those same strongmen sponsor terrorism that hits us in our own country? Gadaffi wasn't an ally of ours for most of his time in power, and neither was Hussein or Assad. All these strongmen sponsored or encouraged terrorism that either directly hit us, or our allies.
Serious question. When did either Hussain or Assad encourage or sponsor terrorism against us, any other European country or the wider western world?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
Hezbollah and Assad are fighting ISIS. That's in our interest.
Musings that Hollande may activate article 5 of NATO. If he does, thats going to put some politicans in a tricky position.
Attack on one an attack on all.... What that actually means in a terrorist incident as opposed to an army crossing a neighbours border and requiring military support is up for debate.
I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.
Sorry I'm not having that
Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense
Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.
In "Commonwealth immigrants" is the phrase he used most often, and "coloured" which was not controversial in that era as it is now. If you think his speeches and opinions were directed at Afro Carribeans in particular, you have got it very wrong, as you will find if you look properly into his views
You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight
I have better things to do with my time, particularly today.
I will say this though. I heard him speak once, at Durham Union Society, when he was already past 80. I've never seen anyone before or since with such presence.
Anyone interested in politics, particularly the immigration issue, should watch the Frost Interview if they want to be better informed. I'd have thought it would be of interest to a political writer, but your choice of course
Your inherent racism is taking your eye off the ball.
Immigration of Hindi and Sikhs from India has been an unqualified success, that from the Caribbean more of a qualified success but certainly not particularly problematic.
The problem is Islam and its festering underpinnings which spread a creed which is utterly destructive to our cultures and values.
Bloody hell, something from Dair I can agree with :-)
Who on here does not think that the Schengen Agreement has to end?
Me. At this point there's no evidence that national borders would have helped in this case, wait until we know what actually happened.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
A more sober analysis of these atrocities, thanks David for writing it.
Yes, a very good piece. The fact is that we will win. We are stronger and we are better.
We are better. And we can be stronger. But we have to use our strength. Words are not enough.
We also need to stop poking our noses into other countries and thinking they should be run like ours. Time they started looking to sort the shambles the UK is in and leave the middle east to sort out their own problems. If you poke a hornets nest you can expect to get stung. Time to stop the wishy washy liberals, we cannot solve the world's problem's and solution is not them all moving to Europe.
We need to finally learn the lesson of Iraq that strongman secular dictators are our natural allies and the path to 'democracy', if that is the goal of the neoliberal imperial tendency, is not served by undermining state power in places where extremism has such a strong presence.
What happens when those same strongmen sponsor terrorism that hits us in our own country? Gadaffi wasn't an ally of ours for most of his time in power, and neither was Hussein or Assad. All these strongmen sponsored or encouraged terrorism that either directly hit us, or our allies.
Serious question. When did either Hussain or Assad encourage or sponsor terrorism against us, any other European country or the wider western world?
Assad sponsored and has strong ties with Hezbollah. They in turn are currently fighting for him. Many countries class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation (although we do not).
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
All true but we were not their friends and have been destabilising the middle east for a long long time. Why is anybody surprised that they hate the UK and US.
I must say that I didn't support intervention in Syria because it was hard to see how it would improve matters for anyone (but principally us), though I was really angered by Ed M's false portrayal of his own actions on that vote (one of the few things I did criticise him for), and while I continue to have difficulties in seeing how it would help, it's also hard to see how it could make the situation much worse. It's impossible to let the region sort itself our, as even if it was possible (and given the root causes of some of the antagonism go back hundreds and hundreds of years, that seems unlikely), the simple fact is we can do nothing, but others will in any case (Russia for instance). That doesn't follow that we must involve ourselves in such affairs, but it does mean the idea region will be left to its own devices and, after much bloodletting, will resolve its issues, is bunkum.
We will just have to learn to live with it, as in fact we have already done. I'm reminded of Obama's frank words following the last major school shooting in the USA, although there are at least some people have fairly simple ideas they would like to try (whether they would be effective or not is another matter).
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
Is there a particular reason why the Bataclan would have been targeted?
Potentially yes but its hard to know if the connection to yesterdays events can be done with straight line or whether it was just the unlucky pick.
The French domestic security agency knew from a Islamist that they scooped up back in the summer that there was a plan to target a concert hall. Combine that with the fact that there had been vague threats from Islamists in France about that Bataclan theatre and patterns start to emerge.
Is there a particular reason why the Bataclan would have been targeted?
Potentially yes but its hard to know if the connection to yesterdays events can be done with straight line or whether it was just the unlucky pick.
» show previous quotes Enoch Powell predicted this would happen, Farage has been warning this would happen... the people in power, and those who worship at their feet, have smeared them and denounced their predictions to the detriment of us all
Read the comments on here when Gerard Batten suggested Muslim Leaders sign a charter denouncing jihadi violence
Mr. Taffys, indeed. The British press refused to show the picture and we now have a de facto blasphemy law for Mohammed.
A good example was Nadim Zahawi's recent article on Con Home which asserted, without proof, that top British universities discriminate against black applicants. Now, if that's what an ostensibly centre-right politician believes, we can guess what kind of attitudes prevail in more left wing circles.
And, if you promote the idea that particular groups are the victims of White Europeans, you shouldn't be surprised if some of them are disaffected from European societies.
"Further research using fully representative, detailed, non-personal applicant data is needed to find out for sure whether university admissions are fair or not. “
Basically, the article says previous studies are untrustworthy, more research needed.
Or put more succinctly "please sir, can we have some money".
The idea that the hierarchy of Universities in the United Kingdom in 2015 would have an even remotely discriminatory admissions process is laughable.
If anything, the likelihood is that potential students who do not tick a Multicultural box are the ones being discriminated against.
This, for example, is exactly how the BBC works, Straight, white males who do not "know someone" would be best not wasting their time applying.
Dair, I agree that the author has a vested interest in claiming that more research is needed.
I am just making the point that the article does not even claim to say what TSE says it did, far less constitute the “proof” he claimed
FWIW, three of the most under-represented groups in prestigious UK universities are the Welsh, N. Irish and the Scots.
University admissions to Oxbridge is horribly skewed to London and the S. East.
Everything about the UK is skewed to London and the S. East.
Pretty much a perfect example of the cultural relativism that David was criticising. Sorry MBE but to my mind you are utterly wrong in almost everything you have written there.
(Muslims who demand special legal treatment for the depiction of Mohammed should expect to be disappointed - again, "live and let live", even if that is a hard dictum to learn and live by sometimes).
I don't disagree with much of your post, but on that specific point, they don't need special legal treatment, as Morris Dancer said earlier it gets de facto special treatment in any case.
Comments
@seiriol: Thought it an inconvenience at the time because we might miss the anthems... The stupid things you think. Security at the game was v tight
You can have raw ingredients labelled but once you move beyond that it is a very complicated subject.
That is the most likely reason for the difference.
Which seems optimistic to a very high degree. We live in an increasingly connected world, and it is easy for things that occur in one part of the world to hurt us. The 9/11 bombers were not radicalised in the US, yet they attacked the US. We cannot draw up the drawbridge fully (although we're in a better situation than mainland Europe).
Then there are online issues: kids in our country are seeing radicalisation videos and IS propaganda on their phones and computers. This is very difficult to stop.
As for refugees: people will always try to flee conflict, and they will try to go where they are safest. For various definitions of 'safest', that is the west. The solution is to try to help the ME to stabilise. Failure to do this will just cause more chaos in both the short and long terms.
I'm starting to think the only way to stabilise it is a multi-state solution on religious and ethnic lines. But as I said on the previous thread, that'll cause massive amounts of hardship in the short term, and oil complicates the boundaries. I'm failing to see an alternative long-term solution, hateful as it is.
https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/profiles/9700/Areuniversityadmissionsfair.pdf
I am neither racist nor xenophobic, I wouldn't say I was patriotic either
What you have just posted would insult the intelligence of a year 7 politics student, you are clueless
We'd be dead pissed off if they tried it on us.
It's a curious form of racial discrimination that seems to be applied to Afro-Carribeans, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, but not to black Africans, Indians, or Chinese.
Hollande has called it an act of war, and Sergey Lavrov has had his tuppence-worth. How to react to an act of war? Do you pen a strong Guardian article and assume that's enough?
Some will.
In the real world, Putin and Assad will gain a little, giving the useful idiots an excuse to point the finger elsewhere.
Hollande however, is no left-wing patsy.
"Further research using fully representative, detailed, non-personal applicant data is needed to find out for sure whether university admissions are fair or not. “
Basically, the article says previous studies are untrustworthy, more research needed.
Roger should fit in well with JC's new Labour.
In Sweden Roger, locals are taking it upon themselves to walk jews to / from synagogues for their safety.
Which aspect of Sweden's foreign policy brought that about Rog?
Update - Reuters: Islamic State has said it was behind the attacks in #Paris in an official statement
It's fury at the awful sadness that families all over Paris will be feeling today and for times to come. Cold fury at those leaders who have avoided for decades describing what is happening clearly and taking real effective action at every level (and I'm not primarily thinking of military action). And it's a furious contempt at those who lack the moral clarity that's needed in the face of evil.
Above all, I feel so sad for Paris because it's a city I love, a city in which I have had so many happy times in, a city where I have friends, colleagues and family. And I am furious that it should be assaulted by people who aren't fit to be a stain on Parisian cobblestones and have left so many people dead and injured on the streets of Paris. That's all.
The source of much of the conflict is ethnic and religious. Separating these communities is something I find hateful, but might be the only way forward. A Kurdish state. An Alawite state. Shia states. Sunni states.
There are obvious and deep problems with this. But what other ways forwards are there?
Update - Reuters: Islamic State has said it was behind the attacks in #Paris in an official statement.
Wonder how Milne will spin it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
The idea that the hierarchy of Universities in the United Kingdom in 2015 would have an even remotely discriminatory admissions process is laughable.
If anything, the likelihood is that potential students who do not tick a Multicultural box are the ones being discriminated against.
This, for example, is exactly how the BBC works, Straight, white males who do not "know someone" would be best not wasting their time applying.
The point is you claimed proof, & linked to an article that actually says the diametric opposite of what you claimed.
The article explicitly says that we cannot draw the conclusion that you did without further research.
What a fu**wit Milne is.... and so is Corbyn.
Trying to molly coddle bullies does not work , they only understand a good kick in the bollox. Stop pandering to dogooder liberal halfwits who invariably are stinking rich to boot and never have to confront the results of their actions , living well cocooned far from the issues.
That is an important point Mr Dair. Most immigrants integrate really well.
There's an argument to say that his actions had negative economic effects that were felt in the UK via oil prices.
It was Sean who said there was no evidence/proof.
I merely said there was proof/evidence for Nadim Zahawi's assertions.
Just awful. Another Sky reporter on the Carillon scene noted all the sawdust used to mop up the blood. Terrible.
You'll hear if from the politicians etc as well.
And then they'll go back to looking the other away about forced marriage, cousin marriage, 'honour' killings, Islamic hate academies, Trojan horse schools, election rigging, industrial scale racist child rape, fatwas against writers and doubtless many other things I'm not aware of.
Whilst anyone who talks about them will get called a racist or be accused of exploiting things for their own benefit.
Mr Yokel it is a Daily mail report that made bring up the prospect of ISIS losing. Apparently they lost Sinjar, Ramadi and Hol pretty much in the same day yesterday.
I certainly object to Nadim Zahawi's view that differences in outcomes = unfair discrimination.
In Sweden Roger, locals are taking it upon themselves to walk jews to / from synagogues for their safety.
Which aspect of Sweden's foreign policy brought that about Rog?
The truth is that if you follow the logic of the Isams and Blackburn's (and several other posters on here) there would be no Jews to escort to synagogues in Sweden (or here). Read the excellent post by 'Ears downthread
I am just making the point that the article does not even claim to say what TSE says it did, far less constitute the “proof” he claimed
FWIW, three of the most under-represented groups in prestigious UK universities are the Welsh, N. Irish and the Scots.
University admissions to Oxbridge is horribly skewed to London and the S. East.
In more general terms, an acceptance that not all views deserve respect. Life in the modern West doesn't suit everyone, but it is not imperative on the West to change. Those unable to tolerate Western life and all it entails should rethink or live elsewhwere.
1) The people driving the decision-making (eg British voters) have pretty much no understanding of the situation, hence the difficulty the UK has been having in deciding which side to bomb.
2) The outsiders are pursuing their own interests, which are often at odds with the interests of the people living there.
3) The results of (1) and (2) to date are that the people living there have very little trust in the said outsiders, and will actively resist their bright ideas even if they're well intended.
The usual sentiments- we are at war, clash of cultures, we will defend our freedoms just don't seem to resonate. Hollande's speech that France will unite and act without mercy on the perpetrators- well these people blew themselves up, so I doubt very much he could equal that in the lack of mercy stakes.
The West is not going to solve this problem, we don't understand it, calling it a war echoes Bush's failed strategy and will only make matters worse.
The problem and solution lies within the Muslim community and their struggles with modernity; the incompatibility between theism and the way the world is changing.
A significant minority of Muslim young people are disaffected. That is not the West's fault. They are not disaffected because we are bombing Syria, or because of our policy in Israel- these are little more than side issues, or vessels that hoover up their resentment.
Young Muslims are angry and resentful because their culture is oppressive, their families controlling, their communities stifling. They are sent for hours every week as kids to the Madrassers , they are told how to behave, who to marry, what to do, they have their parents obsessively controlling the minutiae of their lives, now even more so with mobile phones, Facebook and social media. Muslim kids are reminded every day about the terrible consequences of bringing shame into their controlling families.
It is the crushing pressure of the family and the wider Muslim community that for me is causing these young people to rebel. Wouldn't you? And they can't rebel like Western kids, taking drugs, shagging around, turning Goth. They can't because the pressure of the family is too great. The shame of it all. So they turn to causes, their form of rebellion, to ISISS. For a Muslim it is a more legitimate form of rebellion- as perverse as that seems to us Westerners. For Muslim parents, a child running off as a Jihadi bride or fighting for ISISS is less shameful than them taking E, partying and getting pregnant. That is why many of these kids are described by their peers as nice- they are probably nice, they just so screwed up by their background that they lock into a nihilistic cause.
Google Muslim leader- Imams, muftis, Kyias, Muezzins etc... as many expressions for a leader as the Eskimos have for snow . A religion dogged by control freakery.
Muslim parents and communities are driving their kids into this kind of horrible radicalism- an outlet for their disillusionment. Muslims need to accept modernity, secularise and let their kids breathe. If they don't they will face a backlash that has the capacity to be far more terrifying than the atrocities committed yesterday. I'm not holding my breadth mind.
Get Monty Python to make a 'life of Brian, the sequel' , in 8th century arabia.....
The relativism must stop.
Hussein was heavily involved with the PKK and the Abu Nidal Organization. It is strongly alleged he paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died. Hussein was willing to use chemical weapons against foreign nations (Iran) and his own populations.
Both Hussein and Gadaffi had secret advanced military nuclear programs in defiance of international laws and regulations.
They were not our friends, and did not work in our interests.
But from my perspective, one of the things which is best about British culture is that it has generally been "live and let live" and a broad tolerance, even celebration, of non-conformity. There isn't one true way, and that way alone, to be a Brit or to participate in British culture. There are plenty of people who feel strongly British and strongly Sikh, despite Sikh cultural traditions being miles removed from the stereotypical image of an "Englishman".
I remain moderately optimistic we can move to a situation where the vast majority of Muslims here feel they can do the same. That doesn't mean we need to radically change our values to accommodate them (Muslims who demand special legal treatment for the depiction of Mohammed should expect to be disappointed - again, "live and let live", even if that is a hard dictum to learn and live by sometimes) . But it may mean broadening the horizons of our cultural identity, and accepting things we once saw as alien to be something "one of us" might do. I don't think we can move to an unhistorically narrow view of "Britishness", as banning kosher would be.
It is interesting that we do not see many of the local countries rushing to sort out the problems.
The people crossing into Greece evade proper border controls that do, in theory, exist. Likewise, they are supposed to exist in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and various other countries. None has made any great difference.
It may be that the backlash causes Schengen to collapse anyway but it would be a mistake to assume that ending it would make the migration crisis go away.
But Schengen members do need to be able to assure (1) enforcement of the external border, and (2) effective policing so that there are no effective hideouts for fugitives.
Which groups in our country have by far the worst employment records? Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis.
Which groups in our country have by far the highest birth rates (and associated welfare dependence/bill) ? Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis.
FGM, lack of English, grooming.
The same cultural issues surface throughout in relation to religious relativity and the treatment of women.
A recent study in NE London into vaccination against the HPV virus which triggers cervical cancer highlighted the fact that these same groups were refusing their daughters the vaccination on the basis of religious belief linked to sexual activity/promiscuity.
There needs to be an assault on this belief system which is the kind of religious strait-jacket that this country has spent decades throwing off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amwuBblpqSs
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Thats Article 5, it's broad ranging, but it's an acceptance that an attack on a NATO member should be regarded as an attack on all members.
But, if you're anti-NATO then that enactment might be rather tricky to negotiate around.
Commiserations to France.
Our inability to criticise islam, mohammed, and the people who take it seriously without fear of prosecution shows this to be completely inaccurate.
As Mr Dancer pointed out, we have a de factor islamic blasphemy law in our country, imposed by bloodshed, enshrined in law and supported by the establishment.
I am intelligent and will not be fighting for a tool like Cameron or some other such idiot. I will sit in my armchair and lead my life, not slaver like you cretins, who I am certain would be hiding behind the sofa in reality.
Even if there does turn out to be a security argument for checkpoints across Europe to stop people or weapons getting from some areas to other areas, it sounds unlikely that the optimal place to put the checkpoints corresponds to the national borders established in 1945.
First of all we must stop tolerating the intolerent in our own countries.
The left in this country have roped this off. Do what you suggest and you end up losing your livelihood, reputation and liberty.
We will just have to learn to live with it, as in fact we have already done. I'm reminded of Obama's frank words following the last major school shooting in the USA, although there are at least some people have fairly simple ideas they would like to try (whether they would be effective or not is another matter).
Shame to see an expensive education so wasted.